So there's nothing new under the sun... I already know that I wouldn't be able to abx it against --quality 5 but it will sound better for transcoding... I just know it --kidding

Umm..

Why would you possibly want to limit the upper bitrate with MPC? One of MPC's greatest strengths is that it can go well over 320kbps for short periods if it needs to. It does this quite regularly on some of my music as well.

There should be no need to limit the upper bitrate unless you are planning to stream the files. Given your other switches, it really doesn't make sense either.

heh, even more - if i understand the new switches correctly, the --stereoquality, --bandwidthquality and --temporalquality are all tradeoff switches - thus you'd push the encoder into one single direction with the above commandline (for example: sacrificing audio quality for stereo imaging quality)

2) It's limited above by 10, and I still don't understood why. In old encoder version all settings were in db, and the limitation by, for example, 100 db could be explained that -100 db is almost unheareble by any ear. But how could I garantee, that 10 is enough, if I don't know the units?

To my mind all psyhoacoustic tunings should be given in some basic units, like ms, or db, and they should be fully explained.

heh, even more - if i understand the new switches correctly, the --stereoquality, --bandwidthquality and --temporalquality are all tradeoff switches - thus you'd push the encoder into one single direction with the above commandline (for example: sacrificing audio quality for stereo imaging quality)

The problem of this naming of switches is that it gives the impression of giving more/higher 'quality' (though it is explained in the comments that they are tradeoffs).

What about

--stereovsquality
--bandwidthvsnoise
--temporalvstmn

Less chance of someone blindly changing them without stopping to think of the consequences.

QUOTE

To my mind all psyhoacoustic tunings should be given in some basic units, like ms, or db, and they should be fully explained.

You are assuming that it is at all possible to give the tuning parameters in simple to understand or explain units. That's won't be the case.

Originally posted by andy2kxpI say make 1 encoder for that has the quality scale and another encoder with the tweakable switches for people who enjoy tweaking or want to debug the current quality scale.

I second that. An encoder that has only the --quality scale (and maybe a few "utility" switches, like delete input file etc.) would be absolutely idiot-proof. You'd just have to promote it heavily to keep the clever-cloggs types away from the advanced encoder.

@ Frank: Do those --quality values have corresponding nominal bitrates, as in Vorbis?

Why? They'd be built from the same source (the only difference being the front end, which I guess is stored in one separate file anyway), and my idea is that the advanced encoder gets updated as usual, whereas the "easy" encoder is only updated if a beta or final version comes out. That shouldn't be too big a problem, shouldn't it?

Please, no, oh, no. No switches at all. I speak from experience. Because once I feeled like being a good codec-tweaker ...and some here still do. - But now Iīm clean.Edit:Ohhh.... I just noticed that the last thread before mine was nearly before WWII. I was just wondering, why this "SV8"-thing became so actual again, as i thought it would be already dead & buried.

And imagine! I even didnīt vote for this poll out of WWII !! Okay, maybe it was simply because I was not yet born these days. No, seriously: I wanted to start a poll (which isnīt possible here for normalos like me; but I didnīt know) and so I discovered this one.....BTW: You still can vote for my poll, itīs under "Off topic". There itīs allowed. Concerning upstream-speed of your internet-line. - Really interesting topic, I think.